Dispossession is deferred until authorities provide the alternative site promised in the eviction order.

The petitioner claimed occupation of a residential property situated in Natham Survey No.279/3, Magilthagam Village, Thiruvadanai Taluk, Ramanathapuram District, and sought grant of patta.

The District Collector passed an order dated 13 May 2024 under Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, treating the petitioner as an encroacher and initiating steps for removal.

The petitioner challenged the order, contending that the land was classified as “Natham” and that the authorities lacked jurisdiction to evict him under the Act.

The respondents disputed this classification, asserting that the land was “Mayanam” and was being used as a burial ground by the local community.

They further stated that an alternative site was being arranged for the petitioner.

During the hearing, the petitioner sought protection from dispossession until the alternative site was actually provided.

Whether the petitioner could be dispossessed from the subject property pursuant to the order dated 13 May 2024 before an alternative site was provided to him.

Whether the respondents could initiate eviction proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, in respect of land claimed by the petitioner to be classified as “Natham”.

The Court considered Section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act, 1905, under which eviction of an encroacher may be ordered in accordance with the statutory scheme.

It also noted the Full Bench decision in Kaman @ Kamatchi (Died), Nallasivam v. The District Collector, Dindigul District and Others, reported in 2026-1 Writ Law Reporter 321, relied upon by the petitioner for the proposition that proceedings under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachment Act may not be maintainable in respect of Natham land.

However, the Court did not finally determine the disputed classification of the land or conclusively adjudicate the respondents’ jurisdiction; instead, it applied the principle that a person should not be dispossessed before the alternative accommodation or site expressly contemplated by the administrative order is actually provided.

The petitioner challenged the eviction order on the ground that the property was Natham land, while the respondents maintained that it was Mayanam land used as a burial ground.

Since the respondents themselves stated that steps were being taken to provide the petitioner with an alternative site, the Court considered it appropriate to protect the petitioner from immediate dispossession.

The Court therefore confined its determination to the interim protection necessary to give effect to the alternative-site arrangement, without resolving the competing claims regarding the classification of the land or finally deciding the applicability of the Full Bench ruling.

After such provision, the respondents were left free to proceed in accordance with law.

The writ petition was disposed of without costs, and the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.